why is everyone so stuck on saving babies?

[pillowhead]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Obviously type B is not a parent (and neither am I for that matter) A woman gestates a baby for months. During that time the baby moves within her. She grows to love that baby, usually naming it before it is even born. How hard would it be to just give up hope on that baby?

I don't know. This is a "slippery slope" issue. I am going to be a physician, not a god.

I don't know that being a parent has much to do with it. My own mother is one of the biggest advocates of abortion and not intervening with newborns that have no realistic possibility of living a semi-independent, normal life. She doesn't want me to do pediatrics or OB/GYN for precisely that reason.

My mother is a teacher and taught boys with muscular dystrophy and children with cystic fibrosis during the 1980s for several years at a school for handicapped children. Perhaps that's why she feels the way she does,

Perhaps the problem is with the mother's (and father's) themselves. My family is of a culture where telling someone you're pregnant in the first trimester is seen as taboo. It used to be that people worried about "bad spirits," but I think it's in this modern day, that idea still has its place...what happens if something goes wrong? I remember when a woman at work was going around telling everyone that she was 2 WEEKS pregnant. Two weeks!? Anything could happen in the first month. Heck, at two weeks, I'd be worried the test isn't even that accurate yet! I'm certainly not saying a woman in the third trimester should act as if there's no baby on the way, but I do think couples who start saving for the college fund and decorating the baby room in the first few weeks of pregancy could easily be setting themselves up for tragedy.

 

[typeB-md]

First of all, I don't agree with the OP. I fear the day when medicine decides who lives and dies.

What about progeria? Progeria is the disease that causes early aging in children and they die before they are 20 (usually much before) and usually die of an "old age" death (stroke, CHF, etc) There is quite a bit of research being done on this disease. Not only does this research have applications to the progeric children, but also to all of us. By studying progeria, scientists learn more about the aging process and the chronic conditions associated with it.

150 years ago, all a physician was capable of doing was diagnosing and prognosing. Now, we can actually cure and at least comfort. The rise of vaccines and antibiotics changed the fabric of medicine. I personally will not be able to sit by and not help when my treatments even have the slightest ability to help.

Obviously type B is not a parent (and neither am I for that matter) A woman gestates a baby for months. During that time the baby moves within her. She grows to love that baby, usually naming it before it is even born. How hard would it be to just give up hope on that baby?

I don't know. This is a "slippery slope" issue. I am going to be a physician, not a god.

you fear the day that is already upon us. have you looked at how many unhealthy babies can be saved, from the premature child, to spina bifida, to even type 1 DM?

progeria is extremely tragic. we should give the option of aborting these children. Why do we need to research how to cure this disease when we already have the solution - don't let the child be born. This way we can provide our efforts to those who are already born and have non-birth related or latent genetic defects. It just seems to me that allowing a progeric child to grow up is MUCH worse than letting it die before it even knows a single thought.

and when you say you will not be able to sit by and not help, who defines 'help?' Are you really helping a child by allowing him/her to grow up knowing pain and suffering, and having cognition of the fact that s/he will ultimately die much earlier than most average humans?

 

[gaf]

have you looked at how many unhealthy babies can be saved, from ...to even type 1 DM?

Again, TypeB presents diabetes mellitus as one of the most horrible calamities ever to befall a child.

I've heard that sometimes children are born who will grow up to become bald-headed, or even shorter than average. What should we do about them?

Seriously, what's so horrible about DM?

 

[ottwar]

I really agree with you in some aspects. I am a big believer in Darwinian theory. i have friend doing a CT fellowship this, that actually chose his fellowship based on the amount of pediatric intervention he'd have to do, he just doesn't believe in saving kids that will perpetuate a defaulty gene.

First of all, I think humans are a bit past simple evolution. We have the technology, intelligence and resources to allow some of the "faulty" genotypes to survive along with the fittest genotypes (whatever they are). I think the evolution for our species is now more technological than physical/genetic.

There are certain "bottlenecked" populations in the world that carry a lot fo "faulty" genes at a much higher level and I think that as a whole, they are doing just fine.

Saving a kid doesn't perpetuate a (de?)faulty gene, especially if he's not going to carry it on. If you are so worried about these bad genes, why not get rid of the parents that carry them before they birth the children.

absolutely ridiculous!

Again, I believe that in some cases that informed parental decisions should be made in extraordinary/hopeless cases (the purpose of prenatal screening), but to systematically stop trying to save risky neonates is heartless.

 

[typeB-md]

Again, TypeB presents diabetes mellitus as one of the most horrible calamities ever to befall a child.

I've heard that sometimes children are born who will grow up to become bald-headed, or even shorter than average. What should we do about them?

Seriously, what's so horrible about DM?

it is a naturally incompatible phenotype

 

[typeB-md]

First of all, I think humans are a bit past simple evolution. We have the technology, intelligence and resources to allow some of the "faulty" genotypes to survive along with the fittest genotypes (whatever they are). I think the evolution for our species is now more technological than physical/genetic.

There are certain "bottlenecked" populations in the world that carry a lot fo "faulty" genes at a much higher level and I think that as a whole, they are doing just fine.

Saving a kid doesn't perpetuate a (de?)faulty gene, especially if he's not going to carry it on. If you are so worried about these bad genes, why not get rid of the parents that carry them before they birth the children.

absolutely ridiculous!

Again, I believe that in some cases that informed parental decisions should be made in extraordinary/hopeless cases (the purpose of prenatal screening), but to systematically stop trying to save risky neonates is heartless.

why is it heartless? this is what i'm trying to say.

how is it more heartless to allow the child to die RATHER than artificially keep him alive so that he WILL know a life of suffering?

and are we really "past evolution" because we can allow unfit genotypes to survive... doesn't this seem like a very illogical statement? i'm not saying these peoples aren't capable of living, but sometimes i feel they would be better off if just let to die.

 

[kc361]

Type-B, have you spent time with sick children? I mean this seriously. I'm not referring to an occasional once a year jaunt bringing cookies to a kids' hospital, or hearing stories from a friend with an ill sibling. I mean, have you really spent time with them, heard their thoughts, listened to their perspectives on things?

I spent five years volunteering in pediatric oncology, did an intensive internship with kids in peds cardiology and pulmonology, and will be applying for a residency in pediatrics this fall. From these experiences, which are by no means exhaustive compared to what others have had, I can firmly say that I have no right to deny a child the opportunity to live and to develop their own experiences in life. To assume that a child with a disability will be sentenced unalterably to a "life of suffering," with no possibility for the greater intangibles that add meaning to life - love, growth, learning, laughter - is presumptuous and disrespectful. And yes, children with medical conditions can have these rewarding experiences. You mention type 1 diabetes - have you ever cared for a child with that disease? One of the brightest, bubbliest, most inquisitive five-year olds I've ever met had type-1 diabetes. She loves Finding Nemo and wants to be a dancer. Too bad her neonatologist didn't relieve her of her suffering years ago.

And what about the young girl with leukemia, who, despite years of chemo, radiation, bone marrow transplant, recurrence, more chemo, looked up at me in the hallway one day, smiled, and said, with absolute sincerity, "I have a great life. I mean, sometimes it's not so good, because I have cancer, and that stinks. . . but my mom loves me, and my brother plays water balloons with me, and I have such a great life." She did suffer, unarguably, and yet she not only felt fulfillment in life, but, quite simply, she felt grateful for living in general.

Who are we to deny children this chance?

 

[typeB-md]

Type-B, have you spent time with sick children? I mean this seriously. I'm not referring to an occasional once a year jaunt bringing cookies to a kids' hospital, or hearing stories from a friend with an ill sibling. I mean, have you really spent time with them, heard their thoughts, listened to their perspectives on things?

I spent five years volunteering in pediatric oncology, did an intensive internship with kids in peds cardiology and pulmonology, and will be applying for a residency in pediatrics this fall. From these experiences, which are by no means exhaustive compared to what others have had, I can firmly say that I have no right to deny a child the opportunity to live and to develop their own experiences in life. To assume that a child with a disability will be sentenced unalterably to a "life of suffering," with no possibility for the greater intangibles that add meaning to life - love, growth, learning, laughter - is presumptuous and disrespectful. And yes, children with medical conditions can have these rewarding experiences. You mention type 1 diabetes - have you ever cared for a child with that disease? One of the brightest, bubbliest, most inquisitive five-year olds I've ever met had type-1 diabetes. She loves Finding Nemo and wants to be a dancer. Too bad her neonatologist didn't relieve her of her suffering years ago.

And what about the young girl with leukemia, who, despite years of chemo, radiation, bone marrow transplant, recurrence, more chemo, looked up at me in the hallway one day, smiled, and said, with absolute sincerity, "I have a great life. I mean, sometimes it's not so good, because I have cancer, and that stinks. . . but my mom loves me, and my brother plays water balloons with me, and I have such a great life." She did suffer, unarguably, and yet she not only felt fulfillment in life, but, quite simply, she felt grateful for living in general.

Who are we to deny children this chance?

Who are we to FORCE these children to live?

And we would not deny these children anything... nature denied them long before we had the insight to play god.

 

[gaf]

it is a naturally incompatible phenotype

I assume you mean the DM and not the short stature and/or bald headedness. 😉

Lots of things are incompatible without support. Some of them occur beyond childhood. It seems to me that if "natural" compatibility is the crux of your argument, then the thread shouldn't be titled "why is everyone so stuck on saving babies?" but rather "why is everyone so stuck on saving people."

Naturally incompatible as it may be, I still don't understand why you portray DM as the worst of several difficult situations (e.g., "babies can be saved, from spina bifida...to even type 1 DM").

Finally, I'm not sure which of your two arguments you really wish to advance, as you seem argue both of the following positions.

1) That we shouldn't use technology to keep "less fit" genes in circulation. (A counter argument could be that the environment determeines what is fit, and that the environment has now become permissive to certain phenotypes.)

2) That we ought to spare infants a short, toturous life of pain by withholding life-prolonging treatments. (An argument that calls into question why you choose Down syndrome and DM as examples.)​

 

[SocialistMD]

FYI: There is actually a greater genetic link seen with NIDDM than IDDM. Current theory is a genetic predisposition combined with some sort of childhood virus leading to IDDM.

 

[kc361]

"And we would not deny these children anything... nature denied them long before we had the insight to play god."

Yes, the entire point of my post is that we potentially WOULD deny children something quite precious. You argue that to use our medical knowledge to give children the chance to live meaningful, fulfilling lives is "playing god" - but how else do you explain deciding to WITHOLD our medical skills to let children die, because we don't think their lives will be meaningful? Who are we to say that they won't have the potential to lead productive lives? We have the skills, but, you know, we're not going to provide them because we don't think it's worth it. Hm, THAT sounds like playing God to me.

A few things:
(1) You're making the assumption that infants with genetic conditions will only "suffer" and cannot lead meaningful lives. Thus far, you've constructed your argument on conjecture only. Others here have provided you with articles. I've provided you with quotes from children, and from my own experience. Do you have anything with which to substantiate the idea that these kids will "suffer" only? This is why I asked if you've ever worked with ill children, yourself. Your comments suggest that you haven't, but I do not want to make any assumptions.

(2) By this logic: "nature denied them long before we had the insight to play god," and by this comment in another thread:
"Back 200 years ago, these people would've removed themselves from the gene pool. Nowadays, however, we can keep every piece of crap around for ages. Is it really better what we've done? An entire society of takers and only a few doers?. . . if you're not willing to put forth any effort as a patient, you don't deserve treatment. we are overpopulated as it is. make a little space, donate your organs to someone who can take advantage of a putting a little effort forth". . .
you're basically stating a case against medicine AT ALL. So much talk about "nature" and "gene pools." Then what is the point of medicine? ANY intervention could be argued to be "against nature."

 

[typeB-md]

I assume you mean the DM and not the short stature and/or bald headedness. 😉

Lots of things are incompatible without support. Some of them occur beyond childhood. It seems to me that if "natural" compatibility is the crux of your argument, then the thread shouldn't be titled "why is everyone so stuck on saving babies?" but rather "why is everyone so stuck on saving people."

Naturally incompatible as it may be, I still don't understand why you portray DM as the worst of several difficult situations (e.g., "babies can be saved, from spina bifida...to even type 1 DM").

Finally, I'm not sure which of your two arguments you really wish to advance, as you seem argue both of the following positions.

1) That we shouldn't use technology to keep "less fit" genes in circulation. (A counter argument could be that the environment determeines what is fit, and that the environment has now become permissive to certain phenotypes.)

2) That we ought to spare infants a short, toturous life of pain by withholding life-prolonging treatments. (An argument that calls into question why you choose Down syndrome and DM as examples.)​

i'm not trying to advance a specific side of an issue. rather, i'm trying to find out what would be the downside to either of the two scenarios you posted.

the environment has not and will never become permissive of ailments that are incompatible with life. We have a very active research field trying to solve all of these problems. I don't really see them problems so much as i see them as us wanting to always outdo nature.

nature would never select for an individual to die.

 

[superdavykinz]

I was born at 22 weeks and thankfully, despite a few minor problems, I'm healthy despite almost dying twice. Personally, I think that we should allow these children to have the opportunity to live. But isn't the purpose of ongoing research to cure or prevent these illnesses from occuring to benefit future offspring so that they don't live with these illnesses? Why should we stop? I'm not trying to make a personal attack towards the OP, but if you're child had these same illnesses would you continue to upload your belief that they should die? I don't think we have the right to deny a child the chance of living because we assume that they will not want to live because of the pain and suffering caused by their illnesses. They may or may not want to live but I think it depends on the support of everyone involved in their life that would make it worth living or not. Just my rant.

 

[typeB-md]

"And we would not deny these children anything... nature denied them long before we had the insight to play god."

Yes, the entire point of my post is that we potentially WOULD deny children something quite precious. You argue that to use our medical knowledge to give children the chance to live meaningful, fulfilling lives is "playing god" - but how else do you explain deciding to WITHOLD our medical skills to let children die, because we don't think their lives will be meaningful? Who are we to say that they won't have the potential to lead productive lives? We have the skills, but, you know, we're not going to provide them because we don't think it's worth it. Hm, THAT sounds like playing God to me.

A few things:
(1) You're making the assumption that infants with genetic conditions will only "suffer" and cannot lead meaningful lives. Thus far, you've constructed your argument on conjecture only. Others here have provided you with articles. I've provided you with quotes from children, and from my own experience. Do you have anything with which to substantiate the idea that these kids will "suffer" only? This is why I asked if you've ever worked with ill children, yourself. Your comments suggest that you haven't, but I do not want to make any assumptions.

(2) By this logic: "nature denied them long before we had the insight to play god," and by this comment in another thread:
"Back 200 years ago, these people would've removed themselves from the gene pool. Nowadays, however, we can keep every piece of crap around for ages. Is it really better what we've done? An entire society of takers and only a few doers?. . . if you're not willing to put forth any effort as a patient, you don't deserve treatment. we are overpopulated as it is. make a little space, donate your organs to someone who can take advantage of a putting a little effort forth". . .
you're basically stating a case against medicine AT ALL. So much talk about "nature" and "gene pools." Then what is the point of medicine? ANY intervention could be argued to be "against nature."

your points are valid, but i think you're misinterpreting my stance on nature vs. medicine. regarding my working with children, it is limited. i have done just camps and seen children throughout hospitals, but nothing like on the long term with a specific ailment.

i all for using medicine for trying to improve the quality of life for individuals. within this context, however, in some areas i feel it may be easier to just not allow these children to live at all than have to work so hard to try and improve their quality of life.

and no one has provided me with an answer to this question:

"if a child's parents decided to not actively try to keep their child alive (since it would require extra medical intervention), what is the downside to this?"

 

[typeB-md]

I was born at 22 weeks and thankfully, despite a few minor problems, I'm healthy despite almost dying twice. Personally, I think that we should allow these children to have the opportunity to live. But isn't the purpose of ongoing research to cure or prevent these illnesses from occuring to benefit future offspring so that they don't live with these illnesses? Why should we stop? I'm not trying to make a personal attack towards the OP, but if you're child had these same illnesses would you continue to upload your belief that they should die? I don't think we have the right to deny a child the chance of living because we assume that they will not want to live because of the pain and suffering caused by their illnesses. They may or may not want to live but I think it depends on the support of everyone involved in their life that would make it worth living or not. Just my rant.

if the majority of 22 week children end up healthy without exessive long-term intervention, then i would retract my beliefs regarding this specific population. i'm specifically trying to address those specific instances in which the childen experience shortened lives or chronic problems.

and your assessment of research is correct. but if we just stop these children from being born, we have effectively achieved the same result, but we will have saved tons of $$.

let me also preface the following by saying that i am not a father and have not experienced the birth of my own child. but as it is now, i would rather not have to allow my birth-defected child to live. I think it would be more of a heartbreak to have to pity my child and not be able to do the traditional father/son/daughter things. But these are just my feelings and i tend to be on the more extreme end of things.

 

[toughlife]

work with me here...

why do we try and come up with cures for all of these birth defects and try and maintain 20 week premature babies who have a super small chance or no chance of surviving without intervention.. why do we insist on finding a way for these children to live rather than just saying "hey, this is not the way nature intended it to be, let's let this child go so that he will never know a tormented childhood and short life"

why do we insist on trying to keep these otherwise unhealthy babies around. it seems that we do more harm because in the long run they will have a crappy quality of life, they will know they have a crappy quality of life, and eventually they will die earlier than other normal people?

why can't we just let these abnormalities rest in peace rather than try and artificially prevent death in a seemingly un-selected individual?

Mainly because people in this country always have the expectation that everything will be done to save their baby and they have no regard how much money or resources it will take to do it. In a society where the rights of the individual are always first, it is almost expected for this to happen, even to the detriment of society.

 

[bigfrank]

Why do we have Medicaid programs, even though 90+ percent of those individuals will never be helped beyond supporting their addiction, becoming the "sick role," or improving their knowledge and capabilities to use & abuse the system?

We, as Americans, believe in people.

 

[bigfrank]

And, and a word for the OP:

KARMA.

Be careful, my good buddy.

 

[typeB-md]

Why do we have Medicaid programs, even though 90+ percent of those individuals will never be helped beyond supporting their addiction, becoming the "sick role," or improving their knowledge and capabilities to use & abuse the system?

We, as Americans, believe in people.

i'm not here to debate whether or not individuals will be productive in society.

i want to debate researching/treating fetal ailments vs. just allowing them to die

and how does this regard karma?

 

[fang]

and no one has provided me with an answer to this question:

"if a child's parents decided to not actively try to keep their child alive (since it would require extra medical intervention), what is the downside to this?"

(Type B, I agree with your questioning of this topic but your language is a bit callous.)

As others have pointed out, no one person can tell another person what a significant "quality of life" is, so that's not a good enough reason to allow a baby to die. Plus, how well can we really predict someone's medical fate?

To me the biggest ethical barrier to saving as many babies as we can is just that we have a limited amount of money to spend on healthcare, and saving those babies in the long run means we have less money available for other kids, babies, adults, anyone who needs simple, life-changing medical care but can't afford it.

HEre's an example to make this more concrete. My cousin had a child with a severe genetic birth deformity. When she was born, she needed immediate surgury to help her breathe. She is 6 now, and has had more than 50 surguries to reconstruct her face, protect her airway, and releive cranial pressure. When she was a year old, she had to have a tracheotomy to protect her airway, so she only talks by burping. She is very small for her age, may or may not have developmental delays, and I've only seen her happy for about 30 minute stretches before she gets a terrible headache. I'm not even going into the day-to-day drama about her feeding tube, illnesses, falls, etc.

I'm not sure how much her parents have spent on her healthcare. They have good jobs, and they're good at doing their homework so they have tapped into many resources to help afford her medical care and other family needs. Their church kicks in, but most of their help comes from state and federal programs. I could never say she should not have lived (she is an amazing girl, and the way her family has responded is truely astounding)... BUT... why does a middle class white baby get all of these resources when I see kids at a low-cost clinic here who can't get an x-ray to see if their ankle is broken? There's something seriously wrong with that.

It's not about saving my (2nd cousin?) and her family from "suffering"-- they made an informed choice about that they wanted and they've adapted to their situation. The reason to have let her go would be to make sure we don't spend millions of public dollars on just one person. Every kid is precious to someone-- (not just the ones with medical insurance and dedicated parents.)

 

[typeB-md]

(Type B, I agree with your questioning of this topic but your language is a bit callous.)

As others have pointed out, no one person can tell another person what a significant "quality of life" is, so that's not a good enough reason to allow a baby to die. Plus, how well can we really predict someone's medical fate?

To me the biggest ethical barrier to saving as many babies as we can is just that we have a limited amount of money to spend on healthcare, and saving those babies in the long run means we have less money available for other kids, babies, adults, anyone who needs simple, life-changing medical care but can't afford it.

HEre's an example to make this more concrete. My cousin had a child with a severe genetic birth deformity. When she was born, she needed immediate surgury to help her breathe. She is 6 now, and has had more than 50 surguries to reconstruct her face, protect her airway, and releive cranial pressure. When she was a year old, she had to have a tracheotomy to protect her airway, so she only talks by burping. She is very small for her age, may or may not have developmental delays, and I've only seen her happy for about 30 minute stretches before she gets a terrible headache. I'm not even going into the day-to-day drama about her feeding tube, illnesses, falls, etc.

I'm not sure how much her parents have spent on her healthcare. They have good jobs, and they're good at doing their homework so they have tapped into many resources to help afford her medical care and other family needs. Their church kicks in, but most of their help comes from state and federal programs. I could never say she should not have lived (she is an amazing girl, and the way her family has responded is truely astounding)... BUT... why does a middle class white baby get all of these resources when I see kids at a low-cost clinic here who can't get an x-ray to see if their ankle is broken? There's something seriously wrong with that.

It's not about saving my (2nd cousin?) and her family from "suffering"-- they made an informed choice about that they wanted and they've adapted to their situation. The reason to have let her go would be to make sure we don't spend millions of public dollars on just one person. Every kid is precious to someone-- (not just the ones with medical insurance and dedicated parents.)

regarding quality of life, i agree that for everyone it is different. but we have many resources that are looking into ways to "improve the quality of life of those with birth ailments." So it seems that there is some general agreement that there is a quality of life goal. And i very much agree whith what you have stated. I would rather see this money go to families without healthcare than to those children that will most likely (and again it is a personal issue) endure a life with poor outcome/quality.

and with your cousin, i believe that each individual should be left to make the decision on that matter. i'm not saying there is a right decision overall, but each family should be allowed to proceed in a manner that it considers the best.

 

[tigress]

I mentioned Peter Singer and you asked for more info. First off, just do a google search on "Peter Singer" and you get tons of sites about him. Here is his home page: http://www.princeton.edu/~psinger/ . If you just want a summary of what he's about, look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer

disclaimer: I don't agree with Singer's philosophy. I simply wanted to point him out as of possible interest to the OP.

 

[Gulliver]

Babies taste great. Especially when boiled alive

 

[typeB-md]

Babies taste great. Especially when boiled alive

please keep this trash out of this discussion.

is a mod able to delete this type of useless post?

 

[krabmas]

If we didn't save all these babies how would we become stinkin' rich doctors. It's a viscious cycle.

If we let them die we make less money in the long run.

Isn't that why all of you went into medicine?

 

[superdavykinz]

If we didn't save all these babies how would we become stinkin' rich doctors. It's a viscious cycle.

If we let them die we make less money in the long run.

Isn't that why all of you went into medicine?

If people went into medicine for the money, they should go elsewhere. You can make more money doing other things. Start your own business.

 

[Gulliver]

If people went into medicine for the money, they should go elsewhere. You can make more money doing other things. Start your own business.

🙄

 

[Gulliver]

please keep this trash out of this discussion.

is a mod able to delete this type of useless post?

Just try one. They're frickin delicious 😉

 

[labangel]

TypeB-md, why on earth do you want to go to medical school? 😕 Based on your posts here and on the other thread "med school has made me sick" it seems you lack insight into the amount of empathy you will need for other people's problems. I truly hope that you just like to post things to get people to argue and aren't based on your true feelings.

 

[fun8stuff]

I havent read all the posts... but has anyone ever thought about this issue as from a evolutionary standpoint? Couldnt saving these types of babies only allow their "bad" genes to be passed on, thus working against the push for natural selection? It seems like this could have some broad implications.

Anyways, I find it hard to type that- almost inhumane. To answer the posters question, I think that a lot of people want to save babies because a lot of people like babies. A lot of effort goes into gestation and birth. It is evolutionary favorable if a mother is willing to do anything she can to have her baby. I think for a lot of people, there is an innate push to love babies. Thus, there is incentive for physicians and scientists to find ways of saving babies. Not all of these pre-mature births, etc, live that horrible of a life. Perhaps, someday, there will be a way to improve these people's quality of life.

But you almost have to ask, "why do we save anyone?" It doesnt have to just stop with babies... It brings up some tough ethical questions.

 

[DrOctopus]

The real question is, where do you begin to draw the line. If you start with premature infants, and then maybe you go to live birth/genetic defects. But after that, do you keep going? Maybe kids born with FAS or drug addiction don't get intervention. What about latent, juvenile/adult onset disesases (not DM) but say instead MS or ALs? Should Steven Hawking have been left to die at birth because later, his quality of life would be poor.

Ethical slippery slope. Very, very slippery.

 

[Gulliver]

The real question is, where do you begin to draw the line. If you start with premature infants, and then maybe you go to live birth/genetic defects. But after that, do you keep going? Maybe kids born with FAS or drug addiction don't get intervention. What about latent, juvenile/adult onset disesases (not DM) but say instead MS or ALs? Should Steven Hawking have been left to die at birth because later, his quality of life would be poor.

Ethical slippery slope. Very, very slippery.

Yes, Stephen Hawking should have been left to die at birth. He's sooooooo annoying. And his ******* brilliant theory turned out to be wrong too.

 

[phoenixsupra]

Yes, Stephen Hawking should have been left to die at birth. He's sooooooo annoying. And his ******* brilliant theory turned out to be wrong too.

🙄 Personally, I find Stephan Hawking to be a very charming individual. I'm glad he wasn't killed at birth. Even, though his theories on physics turned out to be wrong.

 

[fang]

Couldnt saving these types of babies only allow their "bad" genes to be passed on, thus working against the push for natural selection? It seems like this could have some broad implications.

How many of us would be alive today without prenatal care and antibiotics? In our grandparent's era, women had 10-15 kids and just a few survived. From that argument, we are already changing the gene pool. Plus, many people who are extremely healthy today will never reproduce.

 

[typeB-md]

TypeB-md, why on earth do you want to go to medical school? 😕 Based on your posts here and on the other thread "med school has made me sick" it seems you lack insight into the amount of empathy you will need for other people's problems. I truly hope that you just like to post things to get people to argue and aren't based on your true feelings.

i like medicine because i like science and i can't see myself at any othe job.

just because i'm unempathetic doesn't mean i can't find a field of medicine that suits my personality.

and this post was serious. we have so much money being spent on research to help these children when to me, there seems like there are other options.

it seems the main reason people are against allowing them to die is because of personal beliefs about saying who lives and who dies. and i can agree with this point, so this is why i think individuals should be allowed to make the final decision on whether or not they want to bring their child into this world.

 

[typeB-md]

I havent read all the posts... but has anyone ever thought about this issue as from a evolutionary standpoint? Couldnt saving these types of babies only allow their "bad" genes to be passed on, thus working against the push for natural selection? It seems like this could have some broad implications.

Anyways, I find it hard to type that- almost inhumane. To answer the posters question, I think that a lot of people want to save babies because a lot of people like babies. A lot of effort goes into gestation and birth. It is evolutionary favorable if a mother is willing to do anything she can to have her baby. I think for a lot of people, there is an innate push to love babies. Thus, there is incentive for physicians and scientists to find ways of saving babies. Not all of these pre-mature births, etc, live that horrible of a life. Perhaps, someday, there will be a way to improve these people's quality of life.

But you almost have to ask, "why do we save anyone?" It doesnt have to just stop with babies... It brings up some tough ethical questions.

i know why we save most people.. and i agree that we should.

but i think it comes down to more that people aren't willing to accept that they can't control every aspect of their life. a lot of effort goes into gestation and birth, and this is why a premature baby is most likely natures way of saying 'something is wrong, we need to abort before any extra energy is spent.' And i know there are cases where they grow up normal. It just seems that we can use our funds in a better fashion such as giving more ubiquitous healtchare.

 

[tupac_don]

work with me here...

why do we try and come up with cures for all of these birth defects and try and maintain 20 week premature babies who have a super small chance or no chance of surviving without intervention.. why do we insist on finding a way for these children to live rather than just saying "hey, this is not the way nature intended it to be, let's let this child go so that he will never know a tormented childhood and short life"

why do we insist on trying to keep these otherwise unhealthy babies around. it seems that we do more harm because in the long run they will have a crappy quality of life, they will know they have a crappy quality of life, and eventually they will die earlier than other normal people?

why can't we just let these abnormalities rest in peace rather than try and artificially prevent death in a seemingly un-selected individual?

B/c not all premature babies will turn out ******ed or have a poor quality of life. SOme will actually make it against all odds and become just like you and me. So the question becomes if you don't know which babies will truly make it or not, how can you just get rid of all of them. You can't you have to do everything you can to save their life.

 

[typeB-md]

How many of us would be alive today without prenatal care and antibiotics? In our grandparent's era, women had 10-15 kids and just a few survived. From that argument, we are already changing the gene pool. Plus, many people who are extremely healthy today will never reproduce.

and we are reaching dangerous population levels. we can't keep reproducing unchecked like this. everyone seems to tell me that i want us to play god, but in reality, playing god has already taken place and i believe that it is somewhat out of hand.

 

[typeB-md]

B/c not all premature babies will turn out ******ed or have a poor quality of life. SOme will actually make it against all odds and become just like you and me. So the question becomes if you don't know which babies will truly make it or not, how can you just get rid of all of them. You can't you have to do everything you can to save their life.

i believe parents should be left with that decision. some people like to gamble, i'd rather play the safer odds and err on the side of not giving life than potentially allowing my child to grow up with severe deficits, etc.

but i've already said that i am on the extreme end of this. if my child didn't have legs, or arms, i'd also want it aborted/euthanized. i know some people don't agree with me, but if it's my child, i should have the option of saying which situation is more 'wrong.'

 

[Doc 2b]

but then some will cry Hitler, etc. But the difference to me, really, is that Hitler wanted to exterminate existing genes, whereas I (and it seems like your friend) would just not intervene and "save" what nature was trying to get rid of.

Your right. I guess the looming question is when is it ethically appropriate to interfere with nature. All medicine really is trying to do is stop evolution in the first place.

 

[reddirtgirl]

this is one of those never ending arguments...didn't read this thread but wanted to add. Pardon if its duplicate info:

I highly recommend googling/reading up on Peter Singer, Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics, University Center for Human Values, Princeton University, 1999-

NYT article Princeton's New Philosopher Draws a Stir
By SYLVIA NASAR
ot since 1940 when City College tried to hire an atheist and advocate of free love, Bertrand Russell, has the appointment of an academic philosopher by an American university created such a commotion. The choice of Peter Singer, a world renowned ......

In a letter of his own to the Wall Street Journal, Professor Singer notes that significant advances in medical technology require us to think in new ways about how we should make critical medical decisions about life and death. "Our increased medical powers mean that we can no longer run away from the question by pretending that we are 'allowing nature to take its course.' In a modern intensive care unit, it is doctors, not nature, who make the decisions." read the rest at http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/98/1207/singer.htm

Peter Singer's webite at princeton: http://www.princeton.edu/~psinger/

why do we try and come up with cures for all of these birth defects and try and maintain 20 week premature babies who have a super small chance or no chance of surviving without intervention.. why do we insist on finding a way for these children to live rather than just saying "hey, this is not the way nature intended it to be, let's let this child go so that he will never know a tormented childhood and short life"

why do we insist on trying to keep these otherwise unhealthy babies around. it seems that we do more harm because in the long run they will have a crappy quality of life, they will know they have a crappy quality of life, and eventually they will die earlier than other normal people?

why can't we just let these abnormalities rest in peace rather than try and artificially prevent death in a seemingly un-selected individual?

 

[typeB-md]

this is one of those never ending arguments...didn't read this thread but wanted to add. Pardon if its duplicate info:

I highly recommend googling/reading up on Peter Singer, Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics, University Center for Human Values, Princeton University, 1999-

NYT article Princeton's New Philosopher Draws a Stir
By SYLVIA NASAR
ot since 1940 when City College tried to hire an atheist and advocate of free love, Bertrand Russell, has the appointment of an academic philosopher by an American university created such a commotion. The choice of Peter Singer, a world renowned ......

In a letter of his own to the Wall Street Journal, Professor Singer notes that significant advances in medical technology require us to think in new ways about how we should make critical medical decisions about life and death. "Our increased medical powers mean that we can no longer run away from the question by pretending that we are 'allowing nature to take its course.' In a modern intensive care unit, it is doctors, not nature, who make the decisions." read the rest at http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/98/1207/singer.htm

Peter Singer's webite at princeton: http://www.princeton.edu/~psinger/

someone had mentioned him earlier. his thoughts are very similar to mine. good find and i appreciate the links.

 

[reddirtgirl]

🙄 Personally, I find Stephan Hawking to be a very charming individual. I'm glad he wasn't killed at birth. Even, though his theories on physics turned out to be wrong.

Hawking v. Singer
it'd be a pretty cool debate... though I think I'd get a cramp in my brain trying to follow it.

Hawking earns cool points for appearing on a Pink Floyd Song 👍 👍

 

[automaton]

Singer is a PeTA nut. Who cares what that screwball says. He is out of touch with the rest of the world.

Nobody beats MC Hawking.
http://www.mchawking.com/multimedia.php?page_function=mp3z

WORD IS BOND.

 

[medstyle]

I think if the parents can't pay to keep their severely disabled child alive, insurance or medicaid should not have to step in. I don't think its right for some children, or people for that matter, to drain the money in healthcare when others can't even afford an appointment for antibiotics or other rudimentary care.

Insurance shouldn't be a "lottery" for parents of severely handicapped children.

 

[OSUdoc08]

I think if the parents can't pay to keep their severely disabled child alive, insurance or medicaid should not have to step in. I don't think its right for some children, or people for that matter, to drain the money in healthcare when others can't even afford an appointment for antibiotics or other rudimentary care.

Insurance shouldn't be a "lottery" for parents of severely handicapped children.

That makes sense:

Let's just care for the rich people, since they are the only ones that matter in this world......


A bit of a selfish approach for making money, I would say. But then again, we all enter medicine for different reasons.

If you aren't born rich then, "I'm sorry for ya....?"

🙁

 

[typeB-md]

That makes sense:

Let's just care for the rich people, since they are the only ones that matter in this world......


A bit of a selfish approach for making money, I would say. But then again, we all enter medicine for different reasons.

If you aren't born rich then, "I'm sorry for ya....?"

🙁

maybe i misunderstood, but i got the feeling medstyle was saying just the opposite.

basically, we have all of these poor sick children that aren't being taken care of, yet we have funds that get drained to take care of these severely disabled children.

 

[tigress]

Hawking v. Singer
it'd be a pretty cool debate... though I think I'd get a cramp in my brain trying to follow it.

Actually there was an article, and I forget where but maybe Newsweek, written by a severely disabled lawyer about her relationship/conversations with Singer. The lawyer practices with my mother so I can ask my mother where that was written. It's pretty interesting, though of course from a person with a very strong stance on one side of the issue for personal reasons.

 

[medstyle]

It's a balancing act...we all know this. Is it better to save one profoundly sick child or a 100 others? I will always say it is better to save the 100, unless it was my child. If i cannot afford to treat my child, how can i expect society to forsake 100's of others so my precious seed can live?

I know insurance companies aren't hurting for profit, so i am not sympathizing for them. But its not fair to spend 40k a year giving a homeless drug addict HIV medication either when I have to pay 100 bucks for a hepatitis vaccination, and I'm insured! Something is not adding up.

Some people are ill, and to some extent insurance should be responsible for helping them. They are, after all, insurance. Medicare too. But should a smoker be entitled to chemotherapy? Maybe if healthcare was a right, but not if it is a priviledge.

Is it better to pick and choose who gets treatment or to let it randomly befall some and not others? I think by picking and choosing, we will maximize the effectiveness of healthcare and more lives will be improved. It's cruel to be calculating, but is the alternative better? Because we are living with the alternative.

Society has contributors and detractors. We are all human, but some people deserve and do receive better treatment than others. Its clear this is how a capitalistic nation runs. Why should it be different for healtcare? When the constitution decides that healthcare is a right, and antibiotics are more valuable than bombing iraqis, then I say we should have healthcare for all. But as the nation's priorities rest with ensuring big business succeeds along with a reawakening of 1950's morality, we have to make due with what we got.

The economic pie is limited, and we can only piss away so much. If the goverment by our people decides that medical care is not as important as other "pressing" issues, we cannot afford to give healthcare to all.

my argument is that its better to maximize the efficiency of those dollars. That means if your alcoholic ass gets pregnant and chooses to have an autistic kid, you best sell your house instead of expecting the goverment to pony up 50g's a year. Its not like he's going to contribute to society, no matter what kind of savant he is.

 

[SocialistMD]

my argument is that its better to maximize the efficiency of those dollars. That means if your alcoholic ass gets pregnant and chooses to have an autistic kid, you best sell your house instead of expecting the goverment to pony up 50g's a year. Its not like he's going to contribute to society, no matter what kind of savant he is.

So now we use children as some form of punishment? We know poop runs downhill, so who will really suffer in that situation...?